vk_post_user_f95850f2b0f6

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: authentication is not required, token is sent via email, and it is a raw REST proxy with alias handling. It does not mention error scenarios or side effects beyond the email, but for a simple endpoint it is reasonably transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise—five sentences—with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Each sentence adds value: endpoint, behavior, email delivery, parameter format, and authentication status. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the essential aspects for a simple one-parameter tool: purpose, endpoint, auth requirement, and token delivery. It does not explain the output or response format (no output schema exists), but the description is sufficient for the tool's low complexity. The 'optional' vs required body discrepancy is a gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with the body parameter described as the username, but the description calls the body 'optional' while the schema marks it required, creating a contradiction. It adds useful context about top-level fields and camelCase/snake_case aliases, but the inconsistency reduces reliability.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Request password reset token') and explicitly states the REST endpoint (POST /user/password/token). It clearly distinguishes this tool from other vk_post_user_* siblings by its unique purpose and resource path.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context, including that authentication is not required, and describes the request flow. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions, so it lacks the 'when-not-to-use' guidance for a perfect score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.